critiques on mary douglas' theories · 2020. 6. 4. · purity and pollution in the hebrew bible and...

Critiques on Mary Douglas' Theories

: From the Perspective of Theories of Religion

Yoo. Yo-han

目次

1 . Introduction II. Purity Theories in Religious Studies and Douglas' s Influence on the field m. Ritual Theory in Purity and Danger and Its Theoretical Background N. Theoretical Problems from the Perspective of Religious Studies V. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Since Mary Douglas published Purity and Danger in 1966. this

book has influenced many other scholars' descriptions of purity.

providing a new paradigm of understanding this issue. The field of

religious studies has not developed new theories of purity that

surpass Douglas' insights. Though Douglas has continued to change

and develop her theory of purity since that time in a series of books

and articles. her theories in Purity and Danger still dominate the

field. However. from the perspective of ritual and religious theories

* Ph. D. student of Dept. of Religion at Syracuse University

156 종교한 연구

that have developed over the four decades since Purity and Danger

was published. Douglas' theory of purity. especially as it relates to

ritua l. should be reconsidered in several respects

In this paper. Douglas' theory of purity will be examined from the

perspective of theories of religion. The first part of the paper

situates the place of her theory both within the study of religion and

anthropolo~낀cal ritual theories by articulating both her influence on

the study of purity and the background of her theory. In the second

part of this paper. 1 will critique the theoretical problems in Purity

and Danger from the perspective of the comparative study of

religion. In addition. 1 will also address how Douglas has tried to

overcome these problems in her recent works.

1 believe that this work will help lay the basis for a new theory

of pur까y for the field of religious studies.

II. Purity Theories in Religious Studies

and Douglas' Influence on the Field

Theoretical research on purity and pollution has not been highly

developed in religious studies. Comparative theorists usually do not

focus on purity as an independent issue. Though it is true that

studies of religious traditions have dealt with this issue seriously.

theoretical explanations for purity ideas and purification rituals of

each tradition have not been developed enough. Both studies of

traditions and comparative studies have one thing in common in

theory: the two major branches of religious studies rely heavily on

Mary Douglas ’ theory of purity and pollution in Purity and Danger.

Scholars of particular religious traditions have treated purity

Critiques on Mary Douglas' Theories 157

matters in considerable depth. This is especially true of Judaic

studies and biblical studies which have produced many important

books and articles on purity and purification rituals. Also , works on

Greek religion , Japanese religion , and Hinduism often have extensive

discussions of purity ideas or purification rituals. However , studies of

each tradition have not developed a theoretical understanding of

purity very much. For example , books of Judaic studies that treat

purity and pollution in the Hebrew Bible and Talmud usually work

at the level of exegesis. For a theoretical framework , they still rely

on Mary Douglas' work of four decades ago , PurÍty and Danger.

After summarizing the historγ of research on purity and pollution in

Judaic studies , Jonathan Klawans says ,

It need hard1y be said that Mary Doug1as' s work has proven tremendous1y influentia1 in the fie1d of anthropoJogy and religious studies in addition to inspiring Jasting interest in the topic , Pwityand Danger a1so Jaid the theoretica1 foundation for a11 subsequent work on ritua1 impurity in the Hebrew Bib1e , 1)

Klawans' own work considerably depends on Douglas' symbolic

understanding of purity system.2) Even in the famous commentary of

Jacob Milgrom on Leviticus , LevÍtÍcus 1-16, Douglas' inf1uence is

clearly shown. Not only Milgrom often cites Douglas for the issue of

purity , his premise that χhe ritual complexes of Lev 1-16 make

sense only as aspects of a symbolic system"3) is one of the “lasting

achievements of Purity and Danger , ’4) A more recent book of

1) See Jonathan K1awans, lmpuri(v and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2000), pp. 7-8.

2) See lbid , p. 8, 10, 19, 25 , 32, 36, 39. 3) Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (New York: Doubleday , 1991), p, 45 4) K1awans, Op, cit. , pp. 8-9.

158 종교학 연구

Christine Hayes , Gentile ImpurÍtÍes and JewÍsh IdentWes , also

depends on Douglas' theory. Her main thesis that “in ancient Jewish

culture , the paired terms 'pure' and 'impure' were employed in

various ways not only to describe but also to inscribe socio-cultural

boundaries between Jews and Gentile others" clearly shows Douglas'

in f1uence on her , as Hayes herself admits. 5l

For another example , it is worthwhile to glance over research into

purity that has been made in the study of ancient Greek religion. In

1951. even before Mary Douglas , E. R. Dodds suggested his own

theory on Greek purity ideas , which made a great effect on many

Greek religion scholars. In The Greeks and The Irrational. Dodds

argued that the idea of guilt develops from the practice of purity

ideas and purification rituals. He says , in the second chapter of the

book that is titled as .‘From shame culture to guilt culture" ,

And while catharsis in the Archaic Age was doubtless often no more than the mechanical fulfillment of a titual obligation. the notion of an automatic. quasi-physical cleansing couJd pass by imperceptible gradations into the deeper idea of atonement for sin 61

Walter Burkert summarized Dodds ’ theory. "from the practice of

ritua l. in the figure of impurity , a concept of guilt develops:

purification becomes atonement."7l However , scholars do not accept

this theory any longer. Robert Parker points out that , 'ïn the sphere

of values , a question arises about the relation of pollution to

5) Christine Hayes ‘ GentJJe Jmpurities and Jewish Jdentities: Jntermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press‘ 2002) , p. 3, p. 223 nn. 2-3.

6) E. Robinson Dodds. The Greeks and the lrrational (Berkley: University of California Press. 1951) , p. 37

7) Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press , 1985 (1977)). p. 77.


morality: the irrationality of the former. perhaps. makes it hard for a

rational system of the latter to develop."S) Changing his theoretical

position. Burkert also rejects this theory in his more recent book.

CreatÍon of the Sacred: Tracks of BÍology Ín Early RelÍgÍons. 9 )

Parker' s monumental work. MÍasma: PollutÍon and Purifica tÍon Ín

Early Greek Reli，밍on. examines Greek purity ideas and purification

rituals. However. Parker does not develop his own theory in this

book. Rather. this book focuses on meticulous explanation of Greek

purity by applying old theories such as those of Tylor. William

James and Douglas. In addition. when Parker and Burkert introduce

the social function of purification that maintains the social order and

unification. Douglas influence on them is obvious. 10 )

On the other hand. most comparative theorists of religion do not

deal with the issue of purity seriously πüs becomes clear when one

examines the well-known books of comparative religion. most of

which do not include purity as an independent subject. In Joachim

Wach' s posthumous book. Compara tÍve Study of Religion.

‘pur퍼cation" is mentioned just once. This pioneer of the Chicago

School asserts that purification is a preparatOIγ ritual for the central

cul t like prayer. sacrifice. and sacraments .11) Wach' s famous three

categories of religious experience' do not have room for purity ideas

or ritual. Mircea Eliade sometimes deals with the issue of purity: he

8) Robert Parker. k!iasma: PoJJution and Purification in Ear~v Greek ReJ~검10n (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1983). p. 2.

9) Walter Burkert. Creation 01 the Sacred: Tracks 01 BioJogv in Ear~v ReJigions (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1996). pp. 125-126.

10) Parker, Op. cit .. p. 19. p. 24. Burkert. Greek ReJigion. pp. 77-79. 11) Joachim Wach. 7껴e Comparative StucJ.v 01 ReJigions (New York: Colurn-

bia University Press. 1958). Chapter 4. This book was edited by Joseph I\i tagawa who published this book after Wach's death in 1955.


recognizes the symbols of purity in religion. for instance. the

purificatory function of water: 12l he brief1y says that the meaning of

ritual purifications is --a combustion. an annulling of the sins and

faults of the individual and of those community as a whole- and

that they help the individuals and the community construct cosmic

time. 13l However. he does not treat purity as an independent subject.

Most recent books that are used in introductory religious studies

courses follow the example of their forerunners. For instance. Ninian

Smart' s six dimensions of religion do not even mention purity or

purification rituals. 14l Nancy Ring and the other authors of

ntroduction to the Study of ReJigion do not deal with this matter.

either. 15l

In this sense. William Paden' s ReJigious WorJds: The

Comparative Study of ReJjgjon is an exception in that it devotes one

chapter to "Systems of Purity. He clearly differs from Wach by

arguing that the concept of purity is "not limited to such motifs as

chastity or ritual preparations for worship."16l Paden. as a scholar of

the comparative study of religion. tries to utilize the terms of

religious studies to describe purity. Most of a11. he applies the

Eliadean concept of "religious experience . To him. the impure is

equated with the “feared profanities' and "what is incompatible with

12) Mircea Eliade. 자e Sacred and the Proi김ne (New York: Harcourt. 1987 (1957)) , p. 131: Patterns in Comparative ReJigion (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press , 1996(958)) , pp. 194-197.

13) M피ircea Eliade ‘ ηle Afvth 01 the EternaJ Return: Cosmos and History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991 (1949)) , p. 54.

l띠 Ninian Smart ‘ WorJdviews: CrosscuJturaJ ExpJorations 01 Human BeJiels (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall , 1999 (1 983)).

15) Nancy C. Ring (ed.) , Jennifer A. Glancy and Fred Glannon. Jntroduction to the Stud,v 01 ReJigion (Maryknoll: Orbis Book, 1998).

l히 Wìlliam Paden ‘ ReJigious WorJds: The Comparative St떠~v 01 ReJigjon (Boston: Beacon Press , 1988). p. 142.


the sacred , and purification is regarded as "the exorcism of

prof:없ùty"_1 7) 깐lUS ， Paden emphasizes the ro1e of purity ideas in “the

separation of the sacred and the profane"18) more strong1y than

Doug1as who tried to overcome Durkheim' s strict distinction between

the sacred and the profane. Whi1e Doug1as argued there is "no

clear--cut distinction between sacred and secu1ar' ,19) Paden in other

ways simp1y recycles Doug1as' theory and termino1ogy. Just as

Doug1as did in PurÍty and Danger,20l he starts exp1aining the

concept of purity by criticizing Sigmund Freud' s and Robertson

Smith' s out-dated exp1anation of purity that distinguished ‘between

primitive and modern systems of cu1tura1 order." He introduces and

summarizes Doug1as' argument that “ any system will have its own

version of poll ution and danger. "21) Following Doug1as , he a1so

emphasizes the importance of "socia1 order by saying socia1 order is

often the infrastructure of re1igious order. "22)

Thus it is fair to say that the studies of religion , both research

on particu1ar traditions and comparative theories , have much

depended on Mary Douglas when , if at a11 , they have dealt with

purity issues.

17) JbJd., pp. 141-4. 18) Jbid , p. 141. 19) Douglas, Puriév and Danger: An Ana~vsis of Concepts of Pollution and

Taboo (New York: Routledge, 2001(1966)) , p. 41. Also note that just as Paden does in this chapter, she starts the first chapter of Puri(v and Danger by mentioning Eliade's notion of 까he sacred". But she focuses on “ the ambivalence of the sacred" , citing from Patterns i1) Comparative Religion, “ the sacred is at once 'sacred' and 'defiled' (8)." Her pollution IS “ matter out of place (41)." Note that my citation in this article is from the 2001 edition.

20) JbJd., pp. 10-23 21) Paden, Op. cir. , p. 142. 22) ]，야d.， p. 144.


m. Ritual Theory in Purity and Danger and its Theoretical Background

In Doug1as' Purity and Danger. she probes deep1y into the socia1

functions and ro1es of ritual. articu1ating some critica1 characteristics

of ritual. According to her. ritua1 provides a method of mnemonics

and formu1ates experience , It is necessary for controlling human

experience at a societa11eve1: "as a socia1 animal. man is a ritua1

anima1 (63)": "there are some things we cannot experience without

ritual (65) ," Through the function of ritual. peop1e symbo1ica11y create

a unity which is a tota1 universe that orders a11 experience (7이 , It is

ritua1 that maintains χhe cosmic outlines and the idea1 socia1 order

(73) ," In short. according to Doug1as. ritua1 creates a symbo1ic

universe that unifies a society. simu1taneous1y p1aying the ro1e of

maintaining the society' S order ,

In this sense. Doug1as agrees with Victor Turner and C1aude

Levi-Strauss that "ritua1 is creative'. offering "meaning to the

existence of 1ife (73) ," When she published Purity and Danger in

1966. this new paradigm23l of ritual theorγ was just beginning to

appear among some anthropo1ogists , 24l Turner kept deve10ping his

23) Douglas cites Victor Turner. “An Ndembu Doctor in Practice" in JIβ'glC. Faith and Healing (ed.) Arikiev , Glencoe (IJ linois. 1964) and Claude Levi-Strauss. Anthropologie Structurale. J1fagie et Religion in Chapter X. “ L'efficacite Sybolique" (1958). originally published under same title in Revue de 1’'Histoire des Religions. 135. No , 1 (1949) ‘

24) Ronald Grimes. Beginnings jη Ritual Studies (Lanham: University Press of America. 1982) , p, 117 , Grimes argues. “The most general cJaims for ritual have been .. , the traditional religious , Durkheimian sociological. Freudian psychoanalytic. and Cambridge school theories which have dominated modern ritual theorv .. , until the advent of" Levi-Strauss ,


theory , asserting that religious ritual can .. create or actualize the

categories by means of which man apprehends reality."251 According

to Ronald Grimes , Tumer was emphasizing ritual' s creative function , challenging the assumptions of Malinowski and Eliade “ who would

interpret ritual and myth solely as presentations of static paradigms

."261 Clifford Geertz also does not ignore the creative force of ritual.

Citing an example of a Japanese rite that was ‘blind to the ma.ior

lines of social and cultural demarcation in urban life , he argues that

a ritual which failed to function properly can create cultural

ambiguity and social conflict. 27l

More recent theorists , including Catherine Bell , ar밍1e more clearly

that ritual not only informs meanings but also makes meanings.

This is the main point of .. the study of ritual as practice .. or .. the

practice theory that Bell advocates. She says that a basic shift in

the way scholars study ritual is needed:

. the study of ritual as practice has meant a basic shift from looking at activity as the expression of cultural pattem to looking at it

For Levi-Strauss' more elaborated definition of ritual , see Claude Levi-Strauss, The Naked Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press , 1981) 667-682. Concerning Turner , Grimes says that Victor Turner was the first to look upon ritual as having creative and critical capacities: RituaJ Criticism: Case Studies in Jts Practice, Essav on Jts Theorv (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press , 1990) , p. 21.

25) Victor Turner , The Drums 01 AfIJiction: A Stud.v 01 ReJigious Process Among the Ndembu 01 2ambi김 (Oxford: Oxford University Press , 1968) , p. 7.

26) Grimes , Beg끼nings in RituaJ Studies, p. 150. Grimes thinks that Turner's theory is distinct from theirs because 까hese two great mentors of anthropology and religion" emphasized “ the backward-Iooking nature of myth and ritual" and thought that rituals and symbols “ point us backward to a timeless origin."

27) Clifford Geertz, 재e Jnterpretation 01 CuJtures (New York: Basic Books, 2000 (1973)). p. 146 , p. 168


as that which makes and harbors such pattems. In this view , ritual is more complex than the mere communication of meanings and values: it is a set of activities that construct particular types of meanings and values in specific ways. 28)

It is Roy Rappaport who most boldly and strongly asserts that

‘religion' s mé\Ïor conceptual and experiential constituents , the sacred ,

the numinous , the occult , and the divine , and their integration into

the Holy" are entailments or creations of rituaL29l According to Rappaport , the logical properties of ritual create these constituents. In

the process of the formation of humanity , language as symbol

appeared , Language runs intrinsic risks of falsehood and altemative

formulations. Here , the constituents of religion that are generated by

28) Catherine Bell , Rùua!: PerspectÍves and DÍmensÍons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 80.

29) Roy Rappaport, Ritua/ and Re/igion in the Making of Humani(v (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) p. 3, pp. 12-16, pp.

52-57. According to Rappaport, this problem-solving process through

ritual can be expounded deeper by messages that are transmitted by

ritual. He suggests two message streams in ritual (52-57). Canonical messages, which are already encoded in liturgy, are invariant,

impersonal , concern@d with the universal and the eternal , and often

provided with elaborate propriety. On the other hand, self-referential

messages contain information that is transmitted by the participants

concerning their own current physical , psychic or social states to

themselves and other participants. Canonical messages are not encoded

by performers though transmitted by them. They are only found upon

symbols, though they employ icons and make limited use of indices. In contrast, self-referential messages may be more than symbolic and be

represented indexically. Here , “ index" is very important. Rappaport's index is “ a sign that refers to the object it denotes by being really

affected by that object (54)." Index signifies the presence or existence

of imperceptible aspects of events or conditions through perceptible

aspects of the same events or conditions (55). When the problem of falsehood that is generated by symbol becomes serious, it is overcome

or ameliorated in ritual by using indices instead of symbols.


ritua1 are indispensab1e for the deve10pment and existence of human

sociabi1ity because they ame1iorate these intrinsic prob1ems of

1anguage. Rappaport goes further by asserting that ritua1 has

creative functions in two different senses: not only does ritua1 inform

participants of meanings , but it a1so sometimes transforms them or

their surroundings. 30) Ritua1 contains within itse1f a paradigm of

creation ,31 )

Considering that Purity and Danger was pub1ished in 1966 ,

Doug1as can be considered as one of the pioneers who 1aunched the

new paradigm of ritua1 theory.32) Furthermore , since most ritua1

theorists have not de1ved into purity matter in re1ation to ritual. no

one can deny that Doug1as' work is remarkab1e. Doug1as brilliantly

re1ates concepts of purity and pollution to ritua l. She criticizes

‘anti-ritualist prejudice" that has made it difficu1t to find instances

of ritua1 uncleanness in Christian practice (62-3). In contrast , she

emphasizes the significance of ritua1 to understanding purity ideas ,

articu1ating that her conception of purity is symbo1ic ritua1

cleanliness. She understands uncleanness as matter out of place ,

which can be understood through order (41). According to her ,

30) Jbid , p. 109, p. 114, p. 125. Rappaport uses dubbing ritual as an example. Dubbing does not tell a youth to be a knight, nor does it let him know how to be a knight: “ it makes him a knight." He calls this the “performative" force of ritual. To perform ritual is not only to conform to its order but also to make the order substantial (125).

31) In ritual, forms , by which Rappaport means verbal aspects of liturgy , and substance, by which he means the material components of ritual are united , completing each other (1 53). Using many examples of creation myths , he shows that creation is usually represented as the informing of substance and substantiation of form , a union of form and substance. In this sense, he concludes that ritual resembles accounts of creation (1 55).

32) See Grimes, Ritual Criticism, p. 21. Grimes thinks that this new under-standing of ritual as having creative capacities began in the 1960s


impurity or pollution falls under disorder or danger , which should be

excluded from a culture in order to maintain it (41). It is ritual that

controls social disorder , namely , impurity: ""ritual controls the danger

of the disorder , recognizing the potency of disorder , finding posers

and truths which cannot be reached by conscious effort (95).

Here , 1 would like to point out one problem in Douglas'

understanding of ritual. According to her , purity rules constitute a

symbolic system. Pollution is ""the by-product of a systematic

ordering and classification of matter , in so far as ordering involves

rejecting inappropriate elements (36)." Douglas argues that this

system is generated by the mental process of perception which

organizes all 0비ects or ideas. Conceptual symbolization seems to

dominate ritual process in Douglas' theory: ‘in short , our pollution

behavior is the reaction which condemns any object or idea likely to

confuse or contradict cherished classifications (37).

However , while ritual can sometimes be a symbolic activity

involving the conceptual process that asks for further interpretatio

n ,33) it is simultaneously the instrumental behavior of everyday lif

e. 34) Recently , some scholars have raised strong 0비ections to the

symbolic interpretation of ritual. Talal Asad has argued that ritual

activity indissolubly links visible signs to invisible virtues. 35) Asad

asserts that the symbolic understanding of ritual is a product of

modem European scholarship and that ritual should be understood as

33) See Geertz. Op. cit., p. 24. 34) Tal;하 Asad. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in

Christiani(v and lslam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press , 1993) , p. 55. Though Asad emphasizes ritual as the instrumental behavior of evervdav life and criticizes Geertz and Turner's svmbolic understandings as a modern European creation, 1 believe that both theories are important in understanding ritual behaviors.

35) lbid. p. 67.


the instrumental behavior of everyday life.361 Fritz Staal , even more

strongly , denies the symbolic meanings of ritual. In 'The

Meaninglessness of Ritual. Staal daringly ar밍les that ritual has no me없Ung， goal , or aim , refuting the widespread assumption that ritual

is composed of symbolic activities that refer to something else. For

Staal. ritual is pure activity for its own sake. In ritual activity , it is

the rules that are important , not the result _3 71 π10ugh it is not easy

to agree with Staal' s radical argument ,381 the idea of ritual behaviors

as "the instrumental behavior of everyday life ’ should not be

ignored.

N. Theoretical Problems from the Perspective

of Religious Studies

Douglas' theory and methodology can be critiqued from the

perspective of religious studies. 1 will focus on three problems within

her theory: the Durkheimian presupposition of society as a unified

entity: her acceptance of the texts at hand as evidence of a

society' s purity ideas without considering the ideology behind them:

and her comparative method that attends to “sameness". Not only

Purity and Danger but also her more recent works will be

examined.

36) Asad, Op. 디ι 37) Fritz Staal, “The Meaninglessness of Ritual" , 페stoκv 01 Religion 20

(1978) , pp. 2-22. 38) Most scholars. including Jonathan Z. Smith, do not deny that ritual has

aims and meanings. See Jonathan Z. Smith, “The Bare Facts of Ritual" , Histor.v 01 ReJigion 20 (1978) , pp. 125-126.


N-1. Douglas' Theoretical Presupposition

Primitive Societies United by Ritual

Douglas' theory presupposes primitive cultures in which unity is

created by means of ritual. without clearly defining what is

primitive. 39 ) She argues , “each primitive culture is a universe to

itsel(' (Purity and Danger, 4). The matter of purity is explained in

the context of “ a total universe (7이 of primitive cultures. According

to her ,

For the Bushman. Dinka , and many other prirnitive cultures the field of symbolic action is one. The unity which they create by their separating and tidying is not just a little home. but a total universe in which all experience is ordered .... Our rituals create a lot of little sub-worlds. unrelated. Their rituals create one single , symbolically consistent universe. (Purity and Danger. 70)

In short , she believes in a unity or "consistent universe' which is

created by ritual within each primitive culture. She often altemates

between the terms the unity of a culture and social order. According

to Douglas , ritual behavior creates social order and pollution is a

by-product of this social process. Though she sometimes sees the

social conflicts in a culture and modifications of rituals according to

them (especially in chapter 9) , she focuses on how ritual and purity

39) In the fifth chapter of PurÏ(v and Danger, she enumerates characteristics of primitive worlds that are “pollution-prone (74)" , “personal (81)" , and “ man-centred (82)". The standards for this demarcation are abstract and ideal. She freely uses the term, arguing “our professional delicacy in avoiding the term 'primitive' is the product of secret convictions of superiority (75)." To her, just like the Bushman, the Ndembu, and the Dinka , the Israelite society that produced Leviticus is primitive. She does not articulate the boundary between “primitive" and “us".

Critiques on Mary Douglas ' Theories 169

ideas he1p the society overcome conf1icts.

Three decades ago , Geertz pointed out this prob1em in the

socio10gica1 or functiona1 approach to studying ritua1 which stemmed

“originally from Dur에leim' s πle Elementazy Forms of the Religious

Life."40) Geertz calls this “ a bias in favor of ‘we1Hntegrated’

societies"'. He says , 'ln ana1yses of religion this static , ahistorica1

approach has 1ed to a somewhat overconservative view of the ro1e of

ritua1 and be1ief in socia1 1ife. Using a Japanese examp1e , he

meticu1ous1y shows how ritua1 can create cu1tura1 ambiguity and

socia1 conflict

In the preface of the 2002 edition of Purity and Danger, Doug1as

acknow1edges this prob1em and says that she shou1d have added

radica1 taboos ’ that change socia1 order. According to her ,

π1e examples of taboo that 1 gave to illustrate the themes in Pwity and Danger are mainly conservative in effect. They protect an abstract constitution from being subverted. If 1 had anticipated the political implications of taboo , 1 could have mentioned radical taboos .... If 1 were to write the book again , 1 would know what to look out fo l' to

balance the original account 41 )

She recognizes her theory' s conservativeness. Whi1e Doug1as has

continued to deve10p and change her own theory of purity , the fie1d

of studies of re1igion , which has heavily relied on Doug1as' theory of

purity of four decades ago , has not.

N-2. Texts as Evidence without ldeology

40) Geertz, Op. cit. , p. 142. See through pp , 142 -169. 41) Mary Douglas, “Preface to the Routledge Classics Edition" , in Puri(vand

Danger 2002 edition, pp. xix-xx.


ln Purity and Danger, Douglas accepted texts and ethnographical

researches as evidence without examining the ideological or

rhetorical intention behind them. She believes that the total structure

of ancient Israelite society and the systemic nature of conceptions of

defilement can be understood by the means of analyzing the biblical

texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. She articulates the importance

of the texts for understanding the purity system of a culture. She

even argues ,

The only sound approach is to forget hygiene. aesthetics. morals and instinctive revulsion. even to forget the Canaanites and the Zoroastrian Magi. and start with the texts. (PUlity and Danger. 50. emphasis mine)

ln the face of this argument , we have to ask a critical question:

can one expect texts to properly and fairly represent the notions of

purity and the rituals of a culture? The answer is no. Texts cannot

be used as χhe only sound approach.

Many theorists have argued that texts do not show the meaning

of ritual per se , but provide ideological interpretations of rituals or

rhetorical arguments about them.

J. Z. Smith has argued ceaselessly that one should not accept the

description of the text at hand without doubt. According to Smith ,

“no privilege should be granted to any block of material."42) Data are

what scholars choose for their arguments; he asserts , “in culture.

there is no text , it is all commentary 끽3) According to Smith , the

ritual suggested in a text does not show the real systems of the

42) Jonathan Z. Smith, “The Domestications of Sacrifice" , in VioJent Origins. RituaJ JúJJing and CuJturaJ Formation (ed. R. G. Hamerton-Kelly: Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987) , p. 209.

43) Jbld., p. 196, 207, 209.


culture but represents. at most. the ideals of the culture.

In a recent book about medieval rituals. Philippe Buc provides an

example that supports Smith' s views of ritual. In The Dangers of

Ritual. Buc shows that the modem idea of ritual is not the same as

that of early medieval texts. He asserts. "texts were forces in the

practice of power. They should not be decrypted for (elusive) facts

about rituals and then set aside."44l Since historical facts are hidden

behind the intentions of medieval writers. Buc concludes that we

cannot accept the text as it is. According to Buc. a ma.iority of the medieval sources are .the product of interpretation or of attempts to

channel interpretation."45l Just like J. Z. Smith. Buc concludes that

this problem can be overcome through a specific and contextual

approach. 46l

James Watts argues that the rhetorical purpose of the texts.

rather than their symbolic meanings. should be considered. According

to Watts. an ancient text' s meaning may not be related to the

ritual' s meaning and function in ancient culture. π1e rhetoric of the texts. he says. is more likely to “ commend" a ritual than to

‘explain" it. Watts suggests that the rhetorical goals of ritual texts

in the Torah may include: the validation of the ritual and its form

on the basis of ostensibly ancient textual authority: and/or

persuasion to motivate performance of the rituals: and/or persuasion

to accept the whole text' s authority because of its authoritative

instruction on ritual performance."47l

44) Philippe Buc. The Dangers of Rituaf.' Between Earl,v Medieval Texts and Soci김1 Scientifjc Theoκv (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2001). p. 259.

45) Jbld.. p. 9. 46) Jbid.. p. 251. 47) James Watts. “Ritual Text and Ri tual Interpretation". A paper presented

to the ISBL 2003. Cambridge , England. p. 6.


Douglas' use of ethnographical research as evidence has the same

problem as her dependence on ancient texts. She accepts the data as

evidence without considering possible ideological intentions behind it.

Methodologically. scholars should not rely solely on texts when

making conclusions. but consider all other possible conditions and

circumstances. as J. Z. Smith. Buc. and Watts suggest.

This methodological issue is considered more in her recent books

and articles. Douglas seems to be paying more attention to the

circumstances and rhetorical purpose of each text. πlat is. in Purity

and Danger. she did not hesitate in using Deuteronomy as evidence

that can support. in her view. the dietary rules of Levjticus. even

though she brietly mentioned the Priestly author’s attention to order

By contrast. in Leviticus as Literature. she argues that in Leviticus

the unclean animals are not abominable while Deuteronomy equates

unclean animals with the abominable.48l Douglas makes clear the

differences between each text of Pentateuch. explicating the

rhetorical intentions of PriestlY authors of the Second Temple period

(1 2). She concludes that the ritual impurity of Leviticus is related to

the writer' s reverential attitude to ‘God' s order of his creation

(1 51)". However. this methodological elaboration does not entirely

change Douglas' theoretical position. Douglas is still Douglas. 1 will

deal with this later.

48) Mary Douglas. Le끼ticus As Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1999). p. 137. And also see “ Impurity of Land Animals." Poorthuis. M. 1. H. M. and Schwartz. J. (eds.) Purity and Holiness: The Heritage 01 Leviticus. (Leiden: Brill. 2000); Jn the 따'1derness: The Doctrine 01 Dejjjement in the Book 01 Numbers (Sheffield. U.K.: JSOT Press. 1993)


N-3. The Comparative Method: Focusing on Sameness

As Douglas articulates in the 'ïntroduction of PUrÍty and Danger.

49) one of the purposes of this monumental work was comparison

between various religions or cultures. She uses the comparative

method through the whole book in order to support her general

theory on purity and pollution. Many exemplary cases in this book

are suggested so that she can prove her theory. In this process.

‘differences" between the objects of comparison. among which

historical and geographical circumstances are important. are

neglected: she focuses on the 'sameness or --likeness of many

different cultures.

Interestingly. she argues that her comparison is based on

differences. as well as sameness. According to her. "the right basis

for comparison is to insist on the unity of human experience and at

the same time to insist on its variety on the differences which make

comparison worthwhile (78)." However. these differences seem to be

a dichotomy between primitive and modern. She continues:

The only way to do this is to recognize the nature' of historical progress and the nature of primitive and of modern society , Progress means differentiation π1US primitive means undifferentiated; modern means differentiated , (Purity and Danger. 8)

Purity and Danger is full of her description of primitive ideas of

pollution that is contrasted to modern ones. For instance. the

depiction of Saul' s divine power in The Book of Samuel is compared with the sorcery beliefs of Central Africa in terms of "likeness

49) Douglas. PurÍ(v and Danger, p. 6. She says. “ an understanding of rules of purity is a sound entry to comparative religion."


(Chapter 6): She finds 'likeness" between the Indian purity system and that of Po1ynesia and that of Judaism (Chapter 7).

Her “ primitive" is similar to Eliade' s “ traditiona1 societies" and

‘homo religiosus."50) Both Dou밍as and Eliade set prirnitive/traditiona1

against modemity and try to enumerate examp1es of the likeness of

primitive/traditiona1 cu1tures. They suggest theory first and then

provide examp1es from many cu1tures constituting various times and

p1aces.

This kind of comparison is what J. Z. Smith called χhe

morpho1ogical type of comparison. which does "not take historical.

1inear deve10pment into account." He says. ‘comparison may thus

occur between the individua1 and the archetype: comparison may a1so

occur between ana1ogous members of an atempora1 series."51) In

addition. according to Smith. the tendency to emphasize congruency

and conformity in the scho1ar1y enterprise of comparison is based on

rhetorica1 and ideo10gica1 intention. However. since comparison of

likeness or sameness swallows up the differences that wou1d make a

chain of comparisons interesting. 1ittle of va1ue can be 1eamed from

it. He asserts. what is required is the deve10pment of a discourse of

'difference.' a comp1ex term which invites negotiation. classification

and comparison. and. at the same time. avoids too easy a discourse

of the ’ same'. 52)

Doug1as' new work is not as comparative as Purity and Danger.

As she came to be1ieve that the Israelite purity system is distinctive

from others. she has paid closer attention to Israe1ite purity ideas

50) See Mircea Eliade. 재e Sacred and the Proi김ne. pp. 14-17. 200-202. 51) Jonathan Z. Smith. Map Ís Not 또'rrÍtOJγ (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. 1978). pp. 258-259. 52) Jonathan Z. SIπJith ‘ Drudgeη DÍvÍne: On the ComparÍson of Earl.v Chri-

stÍanÍtÍes and the RelÍgÍons of Late AntÍquÍrv (Chicaglι University of Chicago Press. 1990). pp. 42-53


and ritual in Hebrew literature. At least in the Israelite purity

system , she seems to discover the importance of "difference". Then ,

does this mean that she has realized the theoretical problem of

emphasizing sameness in comparative enterprise? The answer would

be negative. She says ,

But the more that pollution theory deveJoped , and the more that pollution was seen as the vehicJe of accusations and downgradings , the more 1 was bound to acknowJedge that it does not appJy to the most famous instance of the Western tradition. the Pentateuch'" GBneraJ poJJution theory still stands , but its application to the BibJe is Iirnited .53)

While she admits that the Pentateuch has a different purity

system from other cultures , she still believes that her general theory

should not be denied. She thinks that the case of the Hebrew Bible

is just an exception to her general theory.

V. Conclusion: Purity Theories in Religious Studies

Recently. the status of the field of the study of religion has been

seriously challenged as an independent discipline by some scholars

who advocate a rigorous social-scientific methodology.54l Criticizing

53) Mary Douglas, Le따jcus as LÏterature, VJll. 54) Concerning this movement, see Charlotte Allen, “ Is Nothing Sacred?

Casting out the Gods From Religious Studies" , Lingua Franca (November 1996) , pp. 30-40, Donald Wiebe , The PoJitics of ReJigious Studies: ηle Continuing Conflict with TheoJogy in the Academy (New York: Palgrave , 2000) , Russell T. McCutcheon, A1anufacturing ReJigion: The Discourse on S띠 Generis ReJigion and the PoJitics of NostaJgia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) and Critics Not Caretakers: Redescribing the PubJic Study of ReJigion (New York: SUNY Press , 2001) , and Timothy


Eliade' s concept of the sacred as “an ahistorical. Christian concept", they define religion as .. a social way of thinking about social identity

and social relationships."55l These scholars , most of whom are

members of North American Association for the Study of Religion

(NAASR) , oppose the idea of defining religious studies as a branch

of the humanities , arguing that its proper place is among the social

sciences.56l They assert that the scholars of religion have to follow

the methods of sociologists or anthropologists. 57l They believe that

the study of religion has not been academic and scientific (Wiebe

113) or that there is no ""non-theological theoretical basis for the

study of religion as a separate academic discipline (Fitzgerald 3)."

In fact , Purity and Danger, which is written by an anthropologist , can be an exemplary work of this argument for .. methods of

sociologists or anthropologists." As 1 mentioned above , in this book ,

societies , social systems , or social order are overemphasized. Mary

Douglas even appears to be obsessed with the idea of society ,

which , to her , is “ a powerful image and .. potent in his own right to

control or to stir men to action (1 15)." She focuses on the function

of ritual in a society. In particular , she relates purity systems to

functions of the soci머 order, including social hierarchy (97, 126, 1때) . To her , ""all spiritual powers are part of the social system .. and ."the

power of universe is ultimately hitched to society (1 14)." Without a

social process that makes order , nothing can be explained: ‘Dirt was

created by the differentiating activity of mind , it was a by-product

Fitzgerald , The Jdeolog_v 01 Religious Studies (New York: Oxford University Press , 2000)

55) This is Ron Cameron's argument, who suggests “ methodological atheism" in an interview with Allen. Allen, “ Is Nothing Sacred" , p. 30.

56) This is Wiebe's idea described by Allen. Allen, Op. α"t.， p. 32 57) McCutcheon , Critics Not Caretakers, p. 175 , Fitzgerald , The Jdeolog_v 01

Religious Studies, p. 10 ‘ pp. 50-53.


of the creation of order (162)

It is true that there is a conspicuous change in Douglas'

explanation of the social function of biblical purity. In her recent

work. Douglas argues that the Israelite ritual impurity system does

not work for maintaining social order: 'ln so far as the Levitical

rules for purity apply universally they are useless for internal

disciplining. They maintain absolutely no social demarcation."58)

However. it is important to see that Douglas is still emphasizing the

social functions of purity rules. According to Douglas. the Israelites'

purity rules are based on their religious beliefs in the order of

Creation which is related to Israelite social order. 59)

In as much as ancient people did not distinguish society from

religion. Douglas' argument may be right. Yet. contrary to her

argument that "all spiritual powers are part of the social system

and that "the power of universe is ultimately hitched to society.

religious beliefs. which include the belief in spiritual power. cannot

be explained only in relation to society. One should not totally ignore

Geertz's ar밍unent that culture and social structure are different and

that there are often radical discontinuities between them. 60)

58) Mary Douglas. “Atonement in Le끼ticus'. Jewish Studies QuarterJv 1, nO.2 (1993/1994). pp. 112-113.

59) For instance. see Jbld.. 110. and Le~까icus as Literature. pp. 176-194. K1awans summarized three other points that prove an overall unity in her work: she still emphasizes the importance of body symbolism: she is still interested in structures; she remains engaged in a critique of “anti-ritualistic" understanding of religious behavior. See K1awans. Op. cit.. p. 19. Besides. Douglas herself argues for the interrelatedness of her work. See How Jnstitutions Think (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. 1985) ix-x. and her introduction to the 1996 edition of NaturaJ $vmboJs (London: Routledge. 1996(1970)).

60) Clifford Geertz. αJ. αl .. 114-145.


1 am not trying to ar밍1e which methodology of religious studies

is right and which is wrong. However , 1 am suggesting that there

are realms which only the study of religion can delve into even by

using “the anthropological methods". J. Z. Smith' s suggests a good

example for my argument for an approach from the perspective of

the study of religion. He briefly deals with the purity ideas of the

religious groups in the Late Antiquity in Drudgery DÍvÍne in a way

that is distinctive from a socio-anthropological study , which focuses

on society , for understanding purity and pollution. While he tries to

maintain the anthropological perspective , which sees cultures "from

the outside" ,61l he pays attention to what most of socio-

anthropologists have overlooked. That is , Smith relates the types of

purity ideas of Mediterranean religions in Late Antiquity to the

soteriology of each religious group.62l He ar밍1es for the presence of

two world-views in Mediterranean religions. the '1ocative ’ and the

utopian. He terms the locative traditions religions of sanctification .

The soteriology of such a view is two-fold: emplacement is the

norm: rectification or cleaning , which is closely related to

purification , is undertaken if the norm is broken. ’The méÙor cause of

uncleanness in this tradition is "corpse pollution - the mixture , the

contact, of the living and the dead. ’ In contrast to this emphasis on

sanctification , the utopian soteriology emphasizes "resurrection" or

61) Smith, To Take PJace, pp. 98-99. Smith thinks that an anthropological method that sees culture from the outside is the proper way to see religion. Concerning the views on religion, he says, “ Claude Levi-Strauss has written: 'Anthropology is the science of c비ture as seen from the outside ,' that 'anthropology. whenever it is practiced by members of the culture it endeavors to study, loses its specific nature and becomes rather akin to archaeology, history, and philosophy.' He makes an important point."

62) See Smith. Drudger,v D띠ne， pp. 118-125, pp. 132-133.


"rising". Salvation is achieved through acts of rebellion and

transcendence. \Vhen some of the mystery cults of archaic locative

traditions adopted the utopian model. the mé\Ìority of the hints of the process occur "in the context of purification": there were "the

shifting from a language of 'dirt' to one of 'sin' and the shifting

from locative rituals productive of purgation to utopian goals of

salvation."63)

Focusing on soteriology. Smith suggests a different way of

categorizing purity ideas from that of sociologists or anthropologists

who mainly pay attention to the function of ritual in social structure.

Purity ideas and purification ritual should be studied not just in

relation to society but also in terms of a religion' s central doctrines.

This is impossible without a deep understanding of religion itself.

and should be the starting-point for students of religion in studying

purity ideas and purification ritual. It is time for interpreters of

religion to develop their own theories of purity. rather than

depending on Douglas' work.

63) ]，ωd. pp. 132-133.


< Bibliography )

** Works on Ritual Theories

Asad , Tala l. GenealogÍes of RelÍgÍon: DÍsCÍp]jne and Reasons of

Power Ín ChrÍstÍanÍty and Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press , 1993.

Bell , Catherine. RÍtual: PerspectÍves and DÍmensÍons. 0빼Drd: 0었ord


Buc , Philippe. The Dangers of RÍtual: Between Early MedÍeval

Texts and SoCÍal SCÍenti!ic Theory. Princeton: Princeton


Burkert , Walter. Creation of the Sacred, Tracks of Biol명y in Early

RelÍgÍon. Cambridge: Harvard , 1996

Freud , Sigmund. "Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices." 1907

In ReadÍr.뿜s Ín RÍtual StudÍes (ed. Ronald L. Grimes; Upper

Saddle River: Prentice Hall , 1996) , pp. 212-217.

Geertz , Clifford. The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic ,

1973.

Grimes , Ronald L. RÍtual CrÍtiCÍsm: Case StudÍes Ín Its Practice,

Essays on Its Theory. Columbia: University of South

Carolina Press , 1990.

--------. BegÍnnings Ín Ritual StudÍes. Columbia: University of

South Carolina Press , 1995.

Levi-Strauss , Claude. The Naked Man. Trans. J. and D. Weightman.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1981.

Rapparport , Roy A. RÍtual and RelÍgjon Ín the Making of HumanÍty.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 1999.

Staal. Fritz. ’까1e Meaninglessness of Ritual." Numen 26/1 (1 979).


Turner. Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and An ti-Structure.

Berlin: De Gruyter. 1969.

--------- The Drums of Affliction: A Study of Religious Process

Among the Ndembu of Zambia. Oxford: Oxford U띠versity

Press. 1968.

Van Gennep. Arnold. The Rites of Passage. Trans. M. B. Vizedom

and G. L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1960 (1 908).

Watts. James W. "Ritual Text and Ritual Interpretation. A paper

presented to the ISBL 2003. Cambridge. England.

** Works on Purity Notions or Rituals in Biblical & Judaic Studies

Hays. Christine E. Gen ti1e Impurity and Jewish Identities:

Intermarria용e and Conversion from the Bible to the

Talmud. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002.

Jay. Nancy. Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifjce.

Religion. and Paternity. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. 1992.

Klawans. Jonathan. ImpurÍty and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New

York: Oxford University Press. 2000.

Milgrom. Jacob. Leviticus 1-16. New York: Doubleday. 1991.

Neusner. Jacob M. πJe Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Leiden:

E. J. Brill. 1973.

Fonrobert. Charlotte Elisheva. Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and

Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender. Stanford:

Stanford University Press. 2000.

Poorthuis. M. J. H. M. and Schwartz. J (eds.). PuIity and Holiness:

The Heritage of Leviticus. Leiden: Bri1l. 2000.


** Works on Japanese Purity and Purification

Bremen. Jan van 때d Martinez. D. P. Ceremony and RÍtu떠 in 쩌p킹ì.

London: Routledge. 1995.

Genichi Kato ‘ A Historical Study of the ReJigjous Development of

Shinto. New York: Greenwood Press. 1988.

Grapard. Allan G. 안Je Protocol of the Gods: A Study of the Kasuga

Cult in Japanese HistOIγ. Berkeley: University of Califomia

Press. 1992.

Smith. Robert J. ‘Wedding and funeral ritual." Ceremony and Ritual

in Japan. London: Routledge. 1995.

** Works on Greek Purity and Purification

Burkert. Walte r. Greek Religion. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press. 1985 (1 977).

---------- Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early

Religions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1996.

Dodds. E. Robinson. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkley:

University of California Press. 1951.

Parker. Robert. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek

ReJigion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1983

** Works in the Theory of Religion

that address Purity Notions or Rituals

Douglas. Mary. Purity and Danger: an Analysis of concepts of

pollution and taboo. New York: Routledge. 2001 (1 966).

Critiques on Mary Douglas ’ Theories 183

-------. "Atonement in Leviticus ," Jewísh Studíes Quarterly 1,

nO.2 (1 993/1994).

---------. ln the Wílderness.' The Doctríne of Defllement ín the

Book of Numbers. Sheffield , U. K.: JSOT Press , 1993.

---------- Levítícus as Líterature. Oxford: Oxford University

Press , 1999.

Eliade , Mircea. 7꺼e Sacred and the Pro떠ne. New York: Harcourt ,

1987 (1 957).

-------. Patterns ín Comparatíve Relígíon. Lincoln: University

of Nebraska Press , 1996 (1 958).

Long ‘ Charles H. Sígníficatíons.' Sígns, Symbols, and lmages of the

lnterpretatíon of Ji:농!]ÍgÍon. Philadelphia: Fortress Press , 1986.

Paden , William E. Relígíous World.' the Comparatíve Study of

Relígíon. Boston: Beacon Press , 1988.

Smith ‘ Jonathan Z. lmagíníng Relígíon.' From Babylon to Jonestown.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press , 1982.

. To Take Place.' Toward Theory ín Rítual. Chicago:

University of Chicago press , 1987 .

. The Domestication of Sacrifice. In 끼olent Orígíns.'

Rítual Kíllíng and Cultural Formatíon (ed. R. G.

머naerton-Kelly: St밍llord: Stanford University Press , 1987) ,

pp. 191-235

---------- Drudgery Dívíne.' On the Comparíson of Early

Christíanítíes and the Relígíons of Late An tíquíty, Chicago ‘·

University of Chicago Press , 1990.

critiques on mary douglas' theories · 2020. 6. 4. · purity and pollution in the hebrew bible and...

Documents